I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total cost incurred in collecting information for the Board of Trade Journal, the cost of editing, preparing, and printing the periodical; the cost of postages, distinguishing the cost of franked letters; the average circulation, distinguishing copies sold to the public from those sold to the advertising agent or distributed gratuitously; the amount of revenue derived from sale; the amount of revenue derived from advertisements; and the terms of the contract entered into with the advertising contractor; and does the Agricultural Department intend to accept advertisements for its new monthly Journal?

No, Sir; it is not possible to state the amount of the various items of expense incurred in editing, preparing, and issuing the Board of Trade Journal. Many of the services in respect thereof occupy small portions only of the time of Diplomatic, Consular, Colonial, and other officials, and most of the information published would be given to the public in some other form if not issued in the Board of Trade Journal. The headings in the Votes, under which certain of the charges are entered, were described in the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Sheffield's question of 20th April. As regards the circulation and revenue of the journal, it would be unusual and obviously inconvenient to the Public Service to state the particulars required by the hon. Member. The contract is not made with the Board of Trade; but as stated in the answer referred to, it would be shown to the hon. Member on calling at the Treasury. For an answer to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I must refer him to the President of the Board of Agriculture.

The financial arrangements sanctioned in the case of the proposed quarterly journal of the Board of Agriculture include the acceptance of a certain number of advertisements, but the Treasury have stipulated (1) that advertisements shall be charged at the full market rate, and (2) that no more of them shall be accepted than will cover the cost of publication without leaving a profit. We shall, of course, work strictly within the limitations thus prescribed.

Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the Journal is carried on at a profit, and, if so, how much profit?

I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how soon any contracts for cordite will be given to any private firms who tendered for them about five weeks ago; whether the Government intend to give contracts to those private gunpowder manufacturers who have tendered, and who for many years have spent large sums on machinery, and put aside other work to execute orders required by the Government; whether those firms who have bad much experience in adapting powders to conform to the required proof test in guns, should have contracts given to them in preference to firms who have been only manufacturers of high explosives for blasting and similar purposes, where no scientific gun proof is required; whether any part of the blaek powder works at Waltham Abbey is working at night, and whether all such work will be abandoned, so as to give work to private firms who are at present manufacturing gunpowder for the Government under the Waltham Abbey cost prices; and whether he will consider the importance of maintaining the efficiency and general staff of the said private firms by giving them orders, so as not to render their assistance valueless in case of war?

I should like to ask further if it is a fact that the amount of cordite in store at the present moment is only about one quarter of what is considered to be a safe quantity to have in store? Further, in regard to contracts with private firms, is any limitation imposed as to the kind of machinery with which the cordite is made? Has it to be made with machinery the patent for which was taken out by the present Director General of Ordnance Factories?

said, that the interruption of the process of manufacture at Waltham Abbey had considerably depleted the stores, but with the co-operation of the Nobel Company the War Office had been able to produce cordite exactly answering its requirements. As to the particular conditions upon which these tenders were invited, it might be in substance stated that the Government required the cordite to be produced by the same processes, following in the main the same methods as employed at Waltham Abbey, though not necessarily employing the same machinery, giving, however, permission to observe, follow, and copy all the methods and processes adopted at Waltham. In answer to the question on the Paper the hon. Gentleman said: Nearly the whole quantity of cordite tendered for is for the Admiralty, who have not yet decided as to the supply required. I am therefore unable at present to answer paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the question. With regard to paragraph 3, however, it may be pointed out that the methods of manufacture of cordite and gunpowder are quite distinct. As to nightwork at Waltham Abbey, it is only the men in the incorporating mills who work a night shift regularly. If this were not done there would not be sufficient material for the day work of the rest of the factory, and men would have to be discharged. The desirability of maintaining the efficiency of private firms is never overlooked by the Department. As evidence of this I may state that orders have been placed with private firms this year which could have been executed at Waltham.

With how many private firms have contracts been put out?

No contracts have actually been entered into.

Am I to understand that until something more definite is known as to the demand for cordite from the Admiralty and War Office the policy vaguely indicated by the hon. Gentleman will be that private firms will have a fair chance as regards the acceptance of tenders, and that they will be encouraged to put up machinery for supplying these explosives by some indication or promise of support?

said, he could understand the importance of the question to the right hon. Baronet's constituents——

It has nothing to do with any particular constituency. It is a public question. It is a fact that there is a gunpowder factory in my constituency, but beyond my being able to get information there the point does not affect the question which I put—namely, are these private firms to be entirely closed, as regards the supply of Government ammunition?

said, all he wished to guard against was anything in the nature of a promise. With regard to the trade generally, the policy of the Government was to keep alive as fully as possible the sources of private supply, and with that view they had determined that a very considerable proportion of the Government requirements would be obtained from private sources. At the same time, a grave responsibility would rest on the Department if it encouraged numerous undertakings to lay down plant, so that, while the Government accepted the general principle, they would act as prudently as possible and confine themselves to two, or at the most perhaps three, firms.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, the Local Government Board Inspector has yet taken with regard to the labourers' cottages in the electoral division of Feddyglass, in the Union of Strabane?

The Local Government Board inform me that their Inspector called upon the Medical Officer of Health to supply him with a list of the labourers in this electoral division who had applied for cottages, and to report on the condition of the existing cottages as required by law. Should he report that they are in an unsanitary state, the Inspector will at once proceed to the locality to ascertain whether other houses can be had in the district, and if not, he will consider whether it will be necessary to erect new ones to replace these stated to be unfit for habitation. The Medical Officer of Health has been called upon to report as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the officers' quarters in Birr Barracks were lately entered by a masked party, and the door leading to the room occupied by the servants Kathleen O'Donovan and Annie Desmond broken open; that these girls identified some of the assailants as officers of a Militia regiment; that no charge has been brought against these girls; and that, nevertheless, they have been dismissed their situation, whilst no inquiry, beyond an abortive magisterial one, has as yet been instituted into the occurrence; and is it the intention of the Government to direct further proceedings? I wish, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that these girls who have been dismissed are orphans, whose character is testified to be beyond reproach, and is it also a fact, as stated in The Midland Tribune, that one of the accused officers is nearly related to a high official largely responsible for the government of Ireland?

In this case the Crown have instructed the Sessional Solicitor to send up a bill at the next October Quarter Sessions against the four officers as to whom the Magistrates were evenly divided at the late investigation. The bill will contain charges for indecent and common assault, and copies of the bill and depositions will forthwith be served on the parties concerned. That being so, I can say no more on the merits of the case. As for the action taken in respect of the two girls, I have no official knowledge of anything done in consequence of the direction of the Military Authorities. It does not come within my Department.

Will these officers be on bail in the meantime, or are they free to go where they like?

They will be treated like any other persons against whom proceedings are taken.

Is there anything to prevent their leaving the country?

Will anything be done to compensate these girls, who seem to have done nothing?

I must repeat that the action was not taken by my Department.

As to the statement in The Midland Tribune: Is one of the accused officers a relative of a high official in Ireland?

I have no information as to that, and if I had all the information in the world, it would make no kind of difference. These persons will be treated exactly the same as anybody else.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary 1o the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Police Authorities in Clare that Colonel O'Callaghan, J.P., of Maryfort, Tulla, when recently applied to for a temporary licence to sell excisable drinks at a fair in the county by a man named Meehan, a publican of Tulla, used threatening language to Meehan, and fired several revolver shots at him from a window of his residence as Meehan was leaving his lawn; did the police guard who were then at the house, or their superior officers, take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter, or is it proposed to take any action; and, if not, will he explain why; has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to this conduct on the part of a Magistrate when called upon to discharge his duty; and what course does he propose to follow in the matter?

I am informed that late on the night of May 12 last Mr. Meehan went to the residence of Colonel O'Callaghan for the purpose stated in the question, but that the latter refused to see him at this late hour. Owing to the conflicting statements of Colonel O'Callaghan's servant, who appears in the first place to have told him that the District Inspector of Police wanted to see him, and, after contradicting this, that Mr. Meehan wished to see him, Colonel O'Callaghan seems to have thought that there was something amiss, and he went to a back window and discharged his revolver in order to summon his protection party. Meehan, who at this point was walking away from the house, was detained by the police until the matter was cleared up. The shots were fired from Colonel O'Callaghan's bedroom window at the back of the house as Meehan was going in the opposite direction, so that there is no foundation for the statement that the shots were fired at him. I am also informed that it is not the fact that Colonel O'Callaghan used threatening language towards Meehan, whom, indeed, he did not see on the night of the occurrence. It is not proposed, under the circumstances, to take any action in the matter.

Might I ask if the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the effect likely to arise in the locality from the fact that this Magistrate fired a revolver out of his bedroom window in the middle of the night, whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter with a view to preventing Colonel O'Callaghan behaving in this disgraceful manner in the future?

I am not sure that Colonel O'Callaghan's conduct deserves so strong an epithet as that used by the hon. Member. It appears he, being under personal police protection, thought there was something more in the visit than a person wishing to see him, and he fired his revolver—as he says, a very natural thing to do—in order to call the attention of his protecting party.

Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman approves of the conduct of Colonel O'Callaghan in firing a revolver at that hour of the night in the circumstances?

I do not think I am called upon to express moral approval or disapproval, but I do think it is very likely I should have done the same thing myself in the circumstances.

Am I to gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that if I go to Clare and consider there is anything amiss I am to be at liberty to fire a revolver? [Laughter.]

I am glad to know that the hon. Member is not under police protection. [Laughter.]

I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer I will take the first opportunity of calling attention to the dissatisfaction which is caused in the neighbourhood by conduct of this kind on the part of Colonel O'Callaghan—blackguardly conduct, I call it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have been appointed by the Privy Council, or the Board of Agriculture, to act as the Local Authority for the Port of Liverpool for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and whether they profess to execute the provisions of said Acts; whether he is aware that the absence of proper reception lairs entails great suffering upon the animals after they are landed from the vessels; whether he has been acquainted with the fact that, on 27th July, 675 cattle, ex ss. Parkmore, were landed in the space allotted to 580; and whether he has learned that legal proceedings will probably be instituted in consequence of the damage done to the cattle?

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have not been appointed as the Local Authority for the Port of Liverpool under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, but they are the owners of the foreign animals wharves there, and are responsible for the due observance of the Orders of the Board relating to such wharves. As I stated in reply to a previous question by my hon. Friend, we have no complaint to make as to the character of the existing arrangements at Liverpool for the reception of foreign animals; and so long as animals are not landed at the wharves in numbers exceeding the extent of the accommodation provided, I am satisfied that no avoidable suffering would be entailed by reason of those arrangements. My answer to the two concluding questions of my hon. Friend is in the affirmative, but I have no authority to intervene between the Docks Board and the owner of the animals in the matter, especially in view of its possible reference to the Law Courts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the recently appointed General Manager of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has endeavoured to have the cattle landed, utterly regardless of the interests and requirements of the trade at Birkenhead; whether he is aware that one lot of 400 were taken possession of by the Dock Board and stored in seveu different places, a proceeding which harassed the owner, the cattle, and the buyers, and that the ss. Numidian was put into dock on the Liverpool side with her cattle on board in order to have her cargo discharged; whether this is against the Orders of the Board of Agriculture; and whether a sworn local inquiry will be instituted in this matter?

I am aware of and much regret the friction which exists between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the importers of cattle at Liverpool, and I should be glad to do anything in my power to remove the difficulties which have arisen, but I cannot, of course, assent to the proposition contained in the first of my hon. Friend's questions. I have no reason to suppose, from the inquiries I have made respecting the various matters which my hon. Friend has brought under notice, that any breach of the Orders of the Board of Agriculture has occurred on the part of the Docks Board. I have no power to institute a sworn local inquiry as suggested, but I instructed one of my Inspectors to visit Liverpool, and to place himself in communication with the trade and the Docks Board, and I am hopeful that it will not be long before harmonious relations between the various parties concerned are restored.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a person can legally act in a Presentment Sessions Court unless he is a cesspayer in the county; whether it was legal for the Wexford Grand Jury, of which Mr. J. J. Percival, junior, was a member, to nil and reject presentments made by the Presentment Sessions, composed wholly of cesspayers; whether this Grand Jury is responsible for the tax of £800 upon the county for extra police; and whether he is prepared to order an inquiry into this grievance affecting the people of Wexford?

(1.) Section 4 of the Grand Jury Act empowers, and indeed requires, every Justice of the county, except a Resident Magistrate, to attend at Presentment Sessions and act with the associated taxpayers. The Justice need not be a cesspayer; all others must. (2.) The Grand Jury in their discretion may reject a presentment, even though approved of at Sessions, and they are under no obligation to assign reasons for or explain the rejection. (3.) There are 15 men of the extra police force at present serving in the County of Wexford. A reduction of this number is under consideration; but so long as the extra men remain, the Grand Jury has no option but to present the amount claimed on the certificates certified by the Under Secretary under Section 37 of 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 13. (4.) The Executive has no powers over the Grand Jury, nor is it responsible to the Executive for the manner in which it performs its fiscal business.

As this gentleman is only in lodgings as a lodger, will the right hon. Gentleman see if the provision of the law that a Grand Juror shall possess personalty to the value of £50 is carried out in his case?

I will inquire into the matter.

Are there not scores of Nationalists highly rated who are never summoned on the Grand Jury? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the appointment of High Sheriffs and Justices who will represent in some way the vast majority of the cesspayers?

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the meetings of the Congested Districts (Ireland) Board and of the members who attended them since the beginning of the present year; how many members form a quorum, and how many signatures are required to cheques issued by the Board; and are the accounts of the Board duly audited, and does the auditor surcharge in case of misapplication of funds?

I do not think any useful public purpose would be served by laying upon the Table of the House a Return of the nature indicated in the first paragraph of the question. At Board meetings the attendance of three members, and at committee meetings of two members, is necessary. Payments are not made by means of cheques, but by the usual payable orders. The signatures of members are not required to such orders. The accounts of the Board are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who possesses very ample powers in the case of any irregularity.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. George L. Tottenham, D.L., J.P., Glenade, County Leitrim, has offered to place at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board a building equipped with engine-power and shafting for the purpose of starting a woollen factory or other industry; is he aware that this practical and definite offer of Mr. Tottenham's was made with a view to give employment in the congested division of Aghamlish, where wool is one of the principal products; and that up to the present the Congested Districts Board have ignored the offer; is it a fact that up to the present no money has been spent on industries by the Board in the congested districts of Leitrim; and will he have inquiry made as to the feasibility of the scheme suggested by Mr. Tottenham?

The Congested Districts Board have received from Mr. G. L. Tottenham a letter in which he offers to place at the disposal of the Board a building, recently used as a creamery, for starting a woollen or other industry. The offer has not been ignored, as alleged, but, on the contrary, careful inquiry has been made into the matter, and it will come before the Board at their next meeting. No money has yet been expended by the Board on such industries in the County Leitrim.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the North Eastern Railway Company have informed the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company, that it was an error to state that they had expressed their willingness to receive applications for through bookings of live stock from the interior of Ireland, and that the North Eastern Company have only agreed to through bookings from certain Irish ports to York; and whether, as the Irish Companies are willing and anxious to facilitate through bookings, he will take the necessary steps to compel the North Eastern Company to comply with the law.

No, Sir. I am not aware that the North Eastern Railway Company have taken the action attributed to them. I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of June 26th, and also to the Railway Company's letter of the 12th of the same month, a copy of which was forwarded to him two days later. It does not so far appear that the North Eastern Railway Company are breaking the law. I believe they are awaiting the communication from the hon. Member which he has been asked to supply. In that letter the Company promised carefully to consider any statement of the practical inconvenience which the hon. Member wished to remove.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received the letter which I sent to him—a letter from one of the principal Railway Companies in Ireland, pointing out that the North Eastern Railway Company have definitely refused to take through bookings?

I understand that they have not refused. They have said in a letter forwarded to the hon. Member that they would be glad to hear from him the practical inconveniences which he suffers, and that they will then endeavour to meet him. I believe that they are still awaiting his reply.

As a matter of fact, did I not send the right hon. Gentleman a letter from the Midland and Great Western Company of Ireland pointing out these inconveniences?

I do not think that that is inconsistent with the answer I have given. I said the North Eastern were still waiting to hear from the hon. Member.

Am I to understand that the statement by a great Railway Company of the refusal of the North Eastern to give facilities for through bookings is not sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that something ought to be done in the matter?

The answer I gave is not inconsistent with the view contained in the letter. I can only repeat the expression of my hope that the hon. Member will put himself into communication with the Company. I have no right to interfere otherwise than for purposes of conciliation. There is no evidence that the law has been broken.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into the facts in his room with a view to conciliation? I understand it is for the Company to furnish facilities.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been repeatedly directed to the consignment rates now in use on various Irish railways, containing illegal conditions contracting the carrying Corporations out of any liability whatever; and whether he will communicate with the Companies and request them to discontinue this practice?

My attention has been directed to this matter, and I concur in the reply given by my predecessor at the Board of Trade to a question put by the hon. Member on the 13th of April last. My right hon. Friend said—

"Whether the conditions of the notes are reasonable or not, involves legal considerations of great nicety, but the existing law is amply sufficient to deal with such cases, and the persons aggrieved have the remedy in their own hands."

Am I to gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these traders have no resource except to go to law with a great carrying Corporation, and that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade is incompetent to help them?

Order, order!

On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of the Evicted Tenants Bill becoming law, the sum advanced under the Land Improvement Acts (amounting in all to £20,000) to tenants who have been evicted since 1st May, 1879, will become charges upon the new interests of such tenants as may be reinstated?

There seems to be no doubt that the tenants when reinstated will continue liable to pay the charges in respect of the loans referred to. The course to be taken with regard to the instalments which became due during the time that the tenants were not in occupation will have to be considered when their reinstatement takes place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me by what section that is enacted?

It does not require any enactment. These loans follow the laud in all cases.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in Gort, on Sunday the 29th ultimo, who prevented the band of the Gort Hurling Club playing, and seized some of the band instruments; is he aware that the police used their batons, and was any person injured more or less; and will the Head Constable, under whose orders the police appear to have acted, be directed to restore the band instruments, and not interfere with the playing of bands on the occasion of some hurling matches about to take place in Gort?

There is one inaccuracy in the question. The police did not use their batons, and therefore nobody was struck. I have given directions for the instruments taken from the band to be restored to them, and as I am not satisfied with the conduct of the officer on this occasion, I have directed that further and full inquiry shall be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if lie can state why the first instalment of the loan to the Listowel Board of Guardians, authorised by the Provisional Order of November 1893, is still unpaid, although several applications for payment of it have been made by the Board?

said: I understand that the Board of Guardians were informed on 21st ultimo, in reply to their application for the issue of an instalment of loan under the Labourers' Act, that the Mortgage deeds could not be completed until the amount of preliminary expenses (£16 11s.) had been received. On the 3rd instant that amount was paid in, and the deeds will be forwarded for execution by the Guardians at their next meeting. The first instalment will be issued when the deeds are returned executed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (c)f Ireland whether he is aware that for the past 60 years the medical officer of the Stradone Dispensary District, Cavan Union, has always resided in the town of Cavan, which is adjacent to borders of district; and that the present medical officer of said district of Stradone, Dr. James Mathews, has resided, since appointment 23 years ago, in Cavan, as his predecessors did; whether recently Dr. Mathews has, on the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector, Dr. Clibborn, been directed to take up his residence within the Stradone district; whether any neglect of duty on the part of Dr. Mathews was alleged by either the Inspector or the Local Government Board as the cause of the change; whether any serious charge of neglect has ever been made against Dr. Mathews; whether it is alleged that his residence in Cavan has caused any practical inconvenience to the poor of Stradone district requiring his services; whether he is aware that there is within the Stradone district no suitable residence for the doctor with his family; whether the Guardians of the Cavan Union and also the members of the Stradone Dispensary Committee have, on several occasions, remonstrated with the Local Government Board against the order of that body in reference to Dr. Mathews; and whether, if the facts are substantially as stated in the question, he will request the Local Government Board to reconsider their order with reference to Dr. Mathews?

The statements in the first and second paragraphs appear to be substantially correct. There being, however, no suitable residence for Dr. Mathews in his district the Local Government Board assented to his residing in Cavan until such time as he could take up his residence in the district. This he agreed to do. No complaints of neglect of duty on the part of Dr. Mathews have been Drought to the knowledge of the Board. It is obviously inconvenient for the sick poor requiring the attendance of the doctor to have to travel to Cavan, which is five miles from Stradone Dispensary and seven miles from the furthest portion of the district. The Guardians and Dispensary Committee have expressed themselves satisfied that the doctor should reside in Cavan, and he continues to reside there in pursuance of the arrangement to which I have referred, and to which he has agreed—namely, that he would take up his residence in the district as soon as he could procure a suitable residence therein.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet arrived at any conclusion in reference to the question of directing the Police Authorities in Dublin not to oppose the granting to licensed houses, limited in number, well selected as to locality, &c., and with proper restrictions and precautions, permission to supply supper and other refreshments after closing hours, on which subject a question was recently addressed to him which he promised to consider?

I have caused inquiry to be made into the matter, and am informed that there is no licensed restaurant accommodation in Dublin after 11 o'clock at night. On the other hand, however, there is no provision in the Licensing Acts authorising the granting of such facilities, and the police, therefore, would have no power to act in the manner suggested. There is power under the 11th section of the Licensing Act, 1874, to grant exemption orders for the accommodation of persons attending the markets or employed loading or unloading ships. The number of such exempted licensed houses is 33, but all are in the vicinity of the markets and along the quays, and none are privileged to open earlier than 4 a.m., and all must close at 11 p.m.

Is it not the case that in London, in the neighbourhood of the theatres and the great newspaper offices, facilities are granted for getting supper up to 1 a.m.; has not the Recorder of Dublin expressed the opinion that similar facilities ought also to be granted in Dublin; and is it not merely owing to the opposition of the police that the facilities are not afforded to the residents of Dublin?

Has anybody—the Recorder or anyone else—the power to grant licences outside the statutory conditions?

The hon. Member for South Tyrone has indicated the real answer to the question. It is not a question of what the police do, or do not, wish. There is no power to grant licences outside the statutory authority.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that a theatre itself possesses a licence later than the hour named by the right hon. Gentleman?

That is by special enactment.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make further inquiry into this matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the proposed site for the labourer's cottage in the Ballina division of the Nenagh Union, particulars of which have been communicated to him, whether he can now see his way to recommend the Local Government Board to sanction the action of the Board of Guardians in providing a cottage for the labourer Haskett in question, who they consider to be in urgent need of a home for himself and his family?

I have inquired into this matter. An order will be sent down at once.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many writers have been promoted to be assistant clerks (abstractor class) since August, 1889, how many are nominated for such appointments, how many writers are now upon the Register, and what number of them are upwards of 60 years of age?

Up to August 4, 1894, 461 copyists had been appointed to the class of abstractor or assistant clerks, 22 more have been certificated as such, and 33 have been nominated, but have not yet passed the required examination. The number of copyists now on the ordinary Register, including the 55 just mentioned, is 296. Of the balance of 241, those above 60 years of age number 35.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Lytham School Charity is one open to all denominations, the Trustees of which were until recent years chosen from both Protestants and Roman Catholics; whether the Trustees are now all Protestants, and the school a Protestant school; whether grants from the charity have for some years been made to another Protestant school and refused to a Catholic school educating the same class of children; whether, in reply to applications for a grant, the letters were simply acknowledged, and no grant allowed; whether the Trustees have themselves petitioned the Commissioners to be allowed to make grants to the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist schools; what the Commissioners intend to do in the matter; and whether, in view of the delay in passing a new scheme, they will at once make arrangements for giving effect meanwhile to the object of the charity as one for all denominations?

The Commissioners have for some years past had this important charity under consideration. They have drafted two Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, one of which has been published; but in view mainly of the difficulty of reconciling the wishes of Lytham with those of Kirkham, both of which are interested, they have not as yet seen their way to proceed further with a Scheme. The foundation is undenominational. The Commissioners have no precise information whether Trustees at one time included Roman Catholics. The schools of the foundation are public elementary schools in connection with the Church of England. Beyond this there is no direct information as to the creed of the Trustees. Grants have been made to another Protestant school. No grants have as yet been authorised to Roman Catholic schools by the Commissioners, but they have not been refused. At an inquiry held at Lytham by an Assistant Commissioner to discuss the terms of a Scheme the Trustees stated that they were prepared to make grants to the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist schools. As there is no immediate prospect of the establishment of a Scheme the Commissioners will suggest to the Trustees that, pending and subject to the terms of any Scheme, annual grants should be made by the Trustees to all the public elementary schools in Lytham not hitherto supported out of the trust.

Will that recommendation be made at once?

Certainly, Sir; at once.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he can give the House any information with respect to the alleged breach of charity trust in the village of Swanscombe, in Kent, quoted in the newspapers as the Meriall's, or Daniel's, Charitable Bequest; whether it is true that the rent-charge upon certain property has not been paid for many years; whether the tenant occupier or owner who neglected to pay such rent-charge was a Trustee of such charity; whether the Statute of Limitations applies in such a case; and whether the Charity Commission are taking steps for the recovery of such charges under The Charity Trusts Recovery Act, 1891?

The rent-charge upon the property in question has not been paid for upwards of 40 years. It has recently been alleged that the person who neglected to pay the rent-charge was a Trustee of the charity, and that, consequently, the Statute of Limitations does not apply to such a case. The Commissioners have, within the last few days, invited evidence in support of the two foregoing allegations, with a view of considering whether or not they should take steps for the recovery of the charge under The Charitable Trusts Recovery Act, 1891.

Am I to understand that the Charity Commissioners have during 40 years never investigated this charity?

I under stand that this is one of those cases not brought to the notice of the Charity Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Charity Commissioners will lay upon the Table of this House a Return giving the total income from all sources, under the London Parochial Charities Act, 1883, together with the details of the expenditure and the apportionment of the funds, or whether the Charity Commissioners will publish a detailed statement of such income, expenditure, and apportionment in their next annual Report?

The Charity Commissioners will offer no objection to a Motion for a Return of the accounts, receipts, and expenditure rendered to the Commissioners by the Trustees of the City of London Parochial Charities since the creation of that body. The Charity Commissioners do not propose to publish such a statement in their next Annual Report, but they do propose to include in that Report a complete account of the capital stock and cash which have been transferred and paid to the official Trustees of charitable funds in pursuance of the provisions of the central scheme by which the Trustees of the City of London Parochial Charities are constituted, and of the application and appropriation of those funds to the purposes prescribed by The City of Loudon Parochial Charities Act, 1883.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the functions and duties of Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests in Ireland; and whether it is in accordance with the Act relating to such Commissioners that persons having interests in or the direction of public charities, ex officio or otherwise, should be Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests?

The functions and duties of the Commissioners of charitable donations and bequests are regulated by the Statutes 7 & 8 Vic. c. 97; 30 & 31 Vic. c. 54; and 34 & 35 Vice. 102. The Commissioners have no powers except such as are conferred by these Statutes. With regard to the second paragraph, I am informed that there is nothing in the Acts relating to the Commissioners disqualifying persons having interests in or the direction of public charities from acting as Com- missioners of charitable donations and bequests. Moreover, Section 23 of 30 & 31 Vic. c. 54 provides that a Judge shall not be disabled by reason of his being a Commissioner from hearing any case which may arise under the Charitable Donations and Bequests Act.

Is it in accordance with the intention and policy of the Act that persons interested in public charities should become members of this body?

Can the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else find out what the policy of the Act is?

Is not the hon. Member quite capable of answering his own question?

I think he is fully as capable as I am.

On behalf of my colleague in the representation of Sunderland, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that war has been declared between China and Japan, neutral vessels will be interrupted in their trade between those two countries; if so, what time will be granted for sailing to and from belligerent ports; within what distance from British Indian and other colonial coasts and harbours capture and seizure by either of the belligerent Powers will be considered legal; and if it is intended to define, for the guidance of British merchants and shipowners, what description of merchandise is to be considered contraband of war, thus avoiding, as far as possible, complications similar to those which arose during the American Civil War; and whether coal conveyed to non-blockaded ports will be legal traffic?

The Japanese Government have promised that no warlike operations will be undertaken against Shanghai and its approaches, and upon this condition the Chinese Government will not obstruct the approaches of Shanghai. The contending Powers will have, speaking generally, no right to interfere with neutral vessels, except in the event of an effective blockade with due notification, or in a case of contraband of war. It would be a dangerous and unusual course for Her Majesty's Government to undertake to define by a general statement what is and what is not contraband of war; for instance, coal has been held not to be contraband of war as a general rule, but it is possible that it might in certain cases become so. Her Majesty's Government, of course, adhere to the doctrine which they have heretofore maintained, that it is not for the belligerent to decide what is and what is not contraband of war, regardless of the well established rights of neutrals.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture, in order to trace to its primary source certain contagious diseases among animals, have for this purpose appointed 31 Travelling Inspectors, one, the chief, with a salary of £900 per annum, and 30 others at £250 a year; whether these gentlemen possess the scientific knowledge rendering them capable of satisfactorily performing such duties; and whether the Travelling Inspector has supplanted the Veterinary Inspector, the person who should be called upon to perform such services?

The duties assigned to the Principal of the Animals Division of my Department and to the temporary Assistant Inspectors appointed for swine fever business, who are the officers to whom I understand the hon. Baronet to refer, do not require for their performance the possession of veterinary or scientific knowledge. On the retirement, at the end of last year, of the former Director of the Veterinary Department, a re-arrangement of duties was sanctioned, and my veterinary officers are now exclusively engaged on work of a professional character, but no work requiring the possession of veterinary knowledge has been transferred to an officer not possessing such knowledge.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all Companies authorised by Parliament to raise either original or additional share capital since the year 1890 have complied with the provisions of Section 113 of The Stamp Act, 1891; and whether he would have any objection to granting a Return giving the names of all such Companies and the amount due and paid under the conditions of The Stamp Act, 1891?

said, there had been a few cases of Companies being unable to raise the capital authorised in which the Inland Revenue had been unable to obtain payment of the duty, there being no assets. He saw no objection to granting the Return.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the expediency next Session of having the Rules of Procedure so revised as to render it impossible for a single Member to object to the conduct of Public Business after 12 o'clock?

This is a matter I have not considered, and I am not prepared to offer any opinion upon it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering that Public Business cannot be transacted, whether he will consider the desirability of adopting the principle of devolution—of applying the good old cry of Home Rule all round?

This is a rather large question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering that the West Highland Railway (Mallaig Extension) Bill has now received the Royal Assent, and that all the conditions imposed upon the promoters by the Treasury have been fulfilled, he is now prepared to introduce a Bill empowering the Treasury to give the guarantee in regard to the capital to which they are pledged, and upon which the construction of the line depends?

I am afraid it would be impossible to introduce a Bill for this purpose during this Session, but I will take care that the matter is duly considered before next Session.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received a Memorial from the Commissioners of Fort William on this subject?

Yes, Sir.

May I ask whether, in view of the failure of the fishing on the West Coast, and the probable destitution which will follow during the winter and spring, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter in order to enable the Railway Company to go on with their operations, and thus provide work for the people?

May I ask whether the Government will take the usual course of carrying out the undertaking of the late Government; whether it is merely a matter of time which determined the question of not introducing the Bill; and whether the House were to gather that, if an understanding is arrived at that the Bill will not be opposed, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to bring it in this Session?

Of course, we shall carry out the undertaking given by our predecessors in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Chairman of the Erasmus Smith Board, on the 11th of March, 1886, stated, in reply to the late Lord Chancellor Naish and Lord Justice FitzGibbon, that the gross rental of the Erasmus Smith Schools estates was £10,014, and the net income more than £8,000; if so, can he explain how the income has fallen since 1886 to £7,000; has his attention been called to the fact that the High School, Harcourt Street, Dublin, attended by 300 pupils, is one of the Erasmus Smith Schools, though it is more than 20 miles from the nearest of the Erasmus Smith estates, and more than 100 miles from the chief parts of those estates in Limerick and Tipperary, where the gross rental of the Erasmus Smith School estates is £6,000; how many of the pupils attending the grammar schools at Tipperary, Galway, Drogheda, and Harcourt Street are children of the Erasmus Smith tenants, or can be described as "other poor children" who resided within two miles of Tipperary, Galway, or Drogheda; is he aware that Erasmus Smith was compelled by the laws of his day to appoint exclusively Pro- testant Trustees and Protestant schoolmasters, and to provide that the pupils of his schools should be sent to Trinity College, which admitted only Protestants; and that these provisions are relied upon by the members of the Education Commission, who wish to exclude Catholics from the benefits of the endowments; is he aware that Lord Justice FitzGibbon has refused to sign the Draft Scheme signed by Mr. Justice O'Brien and two of the Assistant Commissioners, on the ground that whatever Erasmus Smith was compelled to do by the laws of his day is, in his opinion, not evidence of his intentions; and whether, seeing that more than 95 per cent. of the children for whose free education Erasmus Smith left the endowment are Catholics, he can take any steps to secure the adoption of a scheme which will admit Catholics to the benefits of these endowments?

I believe it is a fact that the Chairman of the Erasmus Smith Board stated, on March 11, 1886, that the net income of the schools estates was more than £8,000. The net income of that Board for the year ended May, 1891, was returned to the Commissioners as £6,583. They inform me they have no information as to the causes of the reduction referred to. The circumstances under which the school in Harcourt Street was founded are stated at page 108 of the Report of the Commissioners for the year 1885–6. In replying to a question put by my hon. and learned Friend on Monday last, I gave the number of pupils attending the schools at Galway, Drogheda, and Tipperary. These figures were courteously supplied by the Governors who, however, stated they were unable to give any further information. The Commissioners have no information in the matter. The functions of the Commissioners are of a judicial character. At the conclusion of the public sitting held to consider the objections to the Draft Scheme for the Erasmus Smith Endowments the Judicial Commissioners stated that they would appoint another occasion on which they would publicly state the conclusions at which they had arrived, with such reasons as they might think it right to give. The only document issued by the Commission was a Draft Scheme the objections to which were discussed at the public sitting referred to, and the Judicial Commissioners have not been able to concur in signing any scheme to be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant. They have fixed a day in October at which to announce their decision, and to state the grounds of their opinions. This sitting could not have been appointed for an earlier date.

Is it a fact that the effect of the action of the Protestant members of the Board, in refusing Catholics fair play, will be that the entire endowment will revert to the Protestants for all time?

I am not informed upon that point, but I hope it is not so.